FPF Reference

    A.2.9:4.2 — Minimal occurrence-description record (normative)

    Preface node heading:a-2-9-4-2-minimal-occurrence-description-record-normative:6880

    What this page is

    This is generated FPF reference text from the specification preface or supporting sections. It helps interpret FPF; it is not FPF Reference product documentation.

    Methodology

    Use it to understand how the specification wants to be read, then return to a route, pattern, or work packet for active work. Cite generated IDs only when the wording changes the task decision.

    Content

    Use the following declaration schema only when a receiving use needs a persistent claim about an actual or candidate speech-act occurrence. The record fields state claims about the referenced occurrence; they are not fields stored in the Work individual and do not make it occur.

    U.SpeechAct <: U.Work

SpeechActRef ::= U.EntityRef
  // resolves to one actual Work individual admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct

SpeechActRecord <: U.Episteme

SpeechActRecord ::=
    {
      speechActOccurrenceRef: SpeechActRef,
      performedBy: U.EntityRef,                     // resolves to the admitted U.System that acts
      performedUnderAssignment: RoleAssignmentRef,  // exact obtaining assignment; A.2.1 owns its role taxonomy and scheme
      enactsMethodRef: optional<U.EntityRef>,        // resolves to the exact U.Method enacted by the actual Work
      methodDescriptionRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>, // separate C.2.1 episteme used only when it identifies, constrains, or justifies that Method or intended Work
      unresolvedEnactsMethodClaimRef: optional<ClaimIdRef>,
      methodRelationGapProvenanceRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>,
      reliancePosture: observationOnly | relianceReady,
      executedWithin: U.EntityRef,                   // claim about the containing U.System
      window: [start, end | open],                   // the act occurrence's extent, never an instituted effect's validity interval
      recognitionTaxonomyRef: U.EpistemeRef,         // exact speech-act recognition taxonomy
      effectiveReferenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme,  // scheme under which actTypes and cited policy/procedure are interpreted
      policyOrProcedureRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>, // current policy/procedure only when recognition or institutional force depends on it
      channelRef: optional<U.EntityRef>,              // optional independently governed communication channel
      utteranceSubjectRefs: optional<set<U.EntityRef>>,
      institutionalTargetRefs: optional<set<U.EntityRef>>,
      actTypes: set<SpeechActTypeRef>,                // ≥1 satisfied classifications under the named taxonomy and scheme
      addressedTo: optional<set<AddresseeRef>>,       // optional: who is addressed / audience
      utteranceRefs: optional<set<DescriptionRef>>,   // where the utterance description is stated or recorded (A.7: Description)
      carrierRefs: optional<set<CarrierRef>>,         // evidence carriers/traces (A.7: Carrier; use A.10 when evidentiary)
      institutes: optional<InstitutedEffects>,        // references to separately obtaining objects/relations instituted or updated by this act
      notes: optional<InformativeText>                // explicitly informative
    }

DescriptionRef ::=
  ClaimIdRef | EpistemeRef
  // Pointer to an utterance description (e.g., spec clause claim ID, a policy episteme, a message-content episteme).

SpeechActTypeRef ::=
  RecognitionTaxonomyLocalTokenRef
  // Must be defined by recognitionTaxonomyRef and satisfied under effectiveReferenceScheme.

AddresseeRef ::=
  PartyRef | RoleRef | RoleAssignmentRef

GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context ::= U.EntityRef
  // resolves only to one exact GrantedPermissionRelation@Context occurrence

EpistemePublicationRelationRef ::= U.EntityRef
  // resolves only to one exact E.24.PUB EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence

InstitutedEffects ::=
  {
    commitments: optional<set<CommitmentIdRef>>,
    permissions: optional<set<GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context>>,
    roleAssignments: optional<set<RoleAssignmentRef>>,
    publicationRelations: optional<set<EpistemePublicationRelationRef>>
  }

    Occurrence-side constraints:

    • (SA‑C0) Actual Work conformance. The individual referenced by speechActOccurrenceRef MUST independently satisfy U.Work conformance under A.15.1: actual performer system, exact covering assignment and any current F.6 attribution, actual enactsMethod -> U.Method, containing system, and temporal extent. A complete record neither creates those facts nor substitutes for them. methodDescriptionRef, when present, cites a separate C.2.1 episteme used to identify, constrain, or justify that Method or intended Work; the description is not enacted.
    • (SA‑C1) The accountable system performs; the assignment grounds. The occurrence's actual performer MUST be an admitted U.System. The exact obtaining U.RoleAssignment under which it acts MUST have that system in HolderSystemSlot and cover the act. Recover the assignment's role value, role-taxonomy episteme, effective reference scheme, and obtaining extent under A.2.1. The assignment supplies role, authority, and attribution ground; it does not perform the act.
    • (SA‑C2) Act types are independently satisfied recognition classifications. The occurrence MUST instantiate at least one SpeechActTypeRef defined by the exact recognitionTaxonomyRef under the stated effectiveReferenceScheme. A token written into a record does not establish that classification. If a policy or procedure supplies an additional recognition condition, cite its exact current episteme and satisfy that condition separately.
    • (SA‑C3) Time honesty and interval separation. The occurrence MUST have an actual temporal extent so freshness can be evaluated; the record's window is a claim about that act extent, not the extent itself. Every instituted commitment, grant, publication relation, status relation, or other effect keeps its own independently governed occurrence or validity interval. Coincident boundaries do not merge act and effect.
    • (SA‑C3a) Policy, procedure, and channel remain neighbors. A cited policyOrProcedureRef is a separate current C.2.1 episteme; its currentness, applicability, and any edition relation must be established under their direct owners. An optional channelRef names an independently governed communication route or participating entity. Neither citation becomes the Method, the Work occurrence, an utterance description, a carrier, or an institutional effect merely by inclusion in the record.

    Keep three questions separate. utteranceSubjectRefs answers what the utterance or claim is about. institutionalTargetRefs answers which object or relation the act is intended to institute or update under the cited current policy or procedure. Actual change or institutional effect is a third world-side fact and is stated only through its exact direct change/effect relation and the matching typed institutes.* reference when the record needs it. An informative notice or assertion may have a subject without any institutional target or changed entity. Shared reference values do not collapse these relation meanings.

    Record- and reliance-side constraints:

    • (SA‑C4) A relied-on occurrence must be observable. When a gate, checklist, commitment, or grant relies on a SpeechActRef, the SpeechActRecord SHALL identify that same occurrence and cite at least one applicable utteranceRef, carrierRef, or separately governed evidence relation. Evidence-critical uses SHOULD cite at least one carrier through A.10. Record completeness alone does not prove occurrence or institutional force.
    • (SA‑C5) Institutional-effect claims are typed references to world-side effects. institutes.* may reference only the exact commitment or obtaining relation occurrence through its declared RefKind. Each institutes.permissions value MUST be an exact GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context whose own participants, instituting policy, effective reference scheme, and validity interval satisfy A.2.8.PER; each institutes.publicationRelations value MUST resolve to an obtaining EpistemePublicationRelation under E.24.PUB. A status claim is an episteme about an effect, not an instituted effect; keep it and its A.10 evidence relation outside institutes.*. The cited current policy or procedure and the direct world-side obtaining conditions still decide whether any effect exists. A Bridge is added only if the receiving inference actually depends on translating or comparing local meanings across schemes.
    • (SA‑C6) F.9 only for a real cross-locality dependency. Cite an F.9 Bridge when a receiving check, gate, provenance claim, or effect inference actually compares, substitutes, or transfers a speech-act type or policy meaning between different local taxonomies, schemes, or policies. A different consumer, organization label, repository location, or downstream use does not by itself create that dependency. The same token in two local schemes does not establish equivalence, and a Bridge does not transfer institutional force by itself.

    Last Updated: 2026-08-03 — upstream FPF commit 9dd92159 (github.com/ailev/FPF)